[0.25]KSP Interstellar (Magnetic Nozzles, ISRU Revamp) Version 0.13

[awc.sorensen]

I just don't like my rockets wobbling in space, that's why I use KJR, it helps a lot. Many a time have I had a rocket with a bunch of antimatter tear itself apart trying to turn to the retrograde marker.

Someone already gave me a solution to the AM tanks, just change 'isTweakable' to true and it works just like every other tank in the game!

[Northstar1989]

a lot of the solar thermal article is seriously wanting for citations. The number of [citations needed] tags raises flags for me and the air ship reference was in the Solar-thermal for ground launch section.

It's Wikipedia. What do you expect? Half the time articles end up with [Citation Needed] tags because a link breaks (a non-stable URL is used), and then gets deleted as a result- and then later editors come around and label it as lacking citations...

This isn't a problem unique to Wikipedia by any means, actually- it was less than a year ago that as many as half the URL's referenced in US Supreme Court decisions were broken as well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/us/politics/in-supreme-court-opinions-clicks-that-lead-nowhere.html?_r=0

I'll admit that the microwave tech is a bit far fetched as well. There are all kinds of problems I can imagine with either of these. Think about an ant under a magnifying glass in the sun. I recall simcity 4 and the possible disaster with the microwave power plants. Had to do with a satellite misalignment and the microwave beam misses the power plants receiver and bakes a section of the city. You shine 50GW on a ship and one wonders how it doesn't go 'poof'

That's with LASER-based beamed power that you have that possibility (and, despite using the name "Microwave Power Plant", that's what the only thing the disaster in SimCity could have plausibly represented...) The power plant and disaster was in SimCity 3000, not SimCity 4 (which cut out all futuristic power technologies, and had a highly inaccurate cost-model where Wind and Solar cost MORE in running-costs than Coal, and were cheap to build), by the way.

If a long-beam MICROWAVE transmission misses its target, it's almost completely harmless- long beam microwaves like those proposed for use in power transmission systems don't interact strongly with everyday matter- only metals to a weak extent, kind of like X-rays. It takes large, specially-designed rectenna device to intercept them- if they missed their target, and hit somewhere else in a city, they might fry a few radios and other devices with antennas, but they certainly wouldn't cause fires or explode sections of a city like in the game...

Of course, the rectennas to intercept long-beam microwaves, such as those that would be used for powering cities, are roughly a kilometer in diameter. While they can be built in folding layers into a hull, kind of like internal antennas, they are still are going to have much lower efficiencies with spacecraft use than the ones seen in KSP-Interstellar (think 5-10% efficiency with dishes at least four times the size of the ones currently used). Long-beam arrays also experience greater power-loss over transmission distance (but almost negligible atmospheric interference).

More likely, the Microwave Power system in KSP-Interstellar represents short-beam arrays, such as you can generate with magnetrons (the devices in your microwave ovens) instead of gyrotrons (much more expensive devices currently used in high-tech applications and heavy industries such as metallurgy). While THIS wavelength is short enough, and experiences enough interaction with everyday matter, that a mis-targeted beam could cause fires in a city in the dozen-Gigawatt power range or above (though devastation on the level of the SimCity disaster would take a beam in at least the hundreds of Gigawatts- MUCH more powerful than what that power plant provides in-game), it can be reasonably used with transmitter and receiver dishes on the kind of scale seen in KSP-Interstellar...

The problem with short-wavelength microwave beams like that is that they also have relatively strong interaction with the atmosphere- which is why you experience such strong power-loss when transmitting through Kerbin's (or worse, Eve or Jool's) atmosphere. Not nearly as bad as a laser-based system on a cloudy day (which can reach over 99% power-loss), but still nothing to sneeze at- especially if clouds get in the way...

As to the air rockets, I think my comments still stand. The 15% improvement you quote doesn't even come close to justifing the extra cost and complexity it adds to the rocket. Thus, in my opinion not worth the time to represent it in KSP.

That's entirely a matter of opinion. I think a 15% improvement is worth the cost and effort- SRB's are still MUCH cheaper than liquid-fuel rockets per ton of propellant, and I would be perfectly willing to use air-augmented SRB's for the ISP levels (500+) that actually exceed that (400+) of LHX/LOX rocketry (even if the extra ducting weight means that the performance is still inferior to LH2/LOX). It would be especially useful once budgets come out- as a middle ground in terms of cost-effectiveness between traditional SRB's and liquid-fuel rockets (if they get the cost-relation between LFO and SRB's right with Budgets, which is unlikely- more likely the cost difference between the two will be MUCH less than in real-life in the game...)

Air-augmented liquid-fuel rockets also outperform their traditional liquid-fuel counterparts in ISP by a large margin, and, despite their extra weight, have a significant niche in potential spaceplane design (which is where they have received the most focus IRL). While heavier than rockets (which are MUCH lighter IRL compared to jet engines IRL than in KSP), they are still lighter than jet engines, and have an ISP intermediate between the two. Their main utility is, as stated, spaceplanes- where extra mass is less of a penalty because wings/lift are used to counteract gravity instead of thrust, the engines can be reused after recovery of the spaceplane (lowering the impact of initial engine cost), and the plane spends a much longer period of time in the atmosphere than a rocket- to build up speed. And, like I said, their TWR is still better than a jet engine (which is abysmal IRL, but great in KSP).

Come to think of it, maybe LFO air-augmented rockets DON'T have much of a use in KSP, because the niche they would fill is already occupied by jet engines (which are FAR TOO POWERFUL, and have an effective ISP roughly 15-16 times their listed ISP, due to the game incorrectly accounting IntakeAir in the fuel-consumption calculations...)

I still stand by the potential utility of air-augmented SRB's (intermediate performance between "normal" SRB's and the LFO engines) once budgets comes out, however.

Regards,

Northstar

Edited June 21, 2014 by Northstar1989

[Aghanim]

As to the air rockets, I think my comments still stand. The 15% improvement you quote doesn't even come close to justifing the extra cost and complexity it adds to the rocket. Thus, in my opinion not worth the time to represent it in KSP.

Its KSP! There is no cost (yet) and complexity doesn't matter at all. I agree with air-augmented SRB

[Northstar1989]

Yay! Figured it out. Forum searching for the win . Here's those power rovers I was talking about.

http://imgur.com/a/qPWaf

That's HUGE- how did you get it away from the Runway/Launchpad without it breaking apart on the slightest bump?

I used the LARGE rover wheels for my rover, with "only" 5 reactors and 3 generators (your design is highly inefficient for Solid Bed Reactors, by the way- two reactors can "share" a single generator), and I had trouble with even TINY bumps in the terrain causing it to explode!

Andrey is right though. Each of these rovers would likely cost a mint. Using Kerbal Contruction Time would also put some limits on this.

To be honest though, budgeting is going to balance a lot of things.

I think I mentioned the cost as well, yak know? But I wouldn't consider a Construction Time plugin fun or realistic by any means- a "real" space program would have its mission planned out years in advance- but that's simply too much to ask of a single KSP player...

The cost should (in theory) be worth it however- unlike sticking those reactors on a rocket, you get to reuse them ad-infinitum if you keep them on the ground (with only a possible small cost for new reactor fuel- which you could easily produce from centrifuging the oceans of Kerbin for Uranium and water, and producing the Ammonia needed to make Uaranium Nitride from the atmosphere- or, just using TAC Fuel Balancer). And, if the devs include a recovery mechanic to the Budgets system, then the ability to build high-performance reusable rockets will be well worth it.

Regards,

Northstar

[Probus]

Does anyone know or can point me to a thread that gives the approximate science points that Interstellar .11 adds (not including science per day experiments)? I am working on a tech tree and this info would be very useful in balancing the Interstellar part.

What would be over the top would be a thread that has the science bonus for every mod that adds additional science (Pavlov response starting ).

[Rabada]

Does anyone know or can point me to a thread that gives the approximate science points that Interstellar .11 adds (not including science per day experiments)? I am working on a tech tree and this info would be very useful in balancing the Interstellar part.

What would be over the top would be a thread that has the science bonus for every mod that adds additional science (Pavlov response starting ).

Theoretically it's infinite because there is no limit to the amount of science you can get from a interstellar reasearch lab. If it helps your balancing keep in mind you can get 7 science per day from the surface of Moho or Eeloo

Edit: oops I somehow missed the part you mentioned the daily science

Edited June 21, 2014 by Rabada

[Probus]

Thanks Rabada. Truthfully, I didn't know it would go that high for bases on those planets. That skews my calculations a bit.

[NeoAcario]

So no one knows the number of impacts required for 'complete' science gathering? (assuming optimal sensor placement on the key 6 points.)

No one?

~Steve

[Angelo Kerman]

So no one knows the number of impacts required for 'complete' science gathering? (assuming optimal sensor placement on the key 6 points.)

No one?

~Steve

i have found that 6 to 8 impactors with 6 probes each having two impact sensors yields good results. I make a main spacecraft bus in 1.25m size with a snowflake pattern of probe bodies. I have six probes built as landers with two impact sensors. Then i have six probes built as impactors, and the bus becomes the seventh impactor. Usually i make a stact where the impactor is below the sensor so that the sensor probe detaches first. This stack is then radially attached around the main bus.

Edited June 22, 2014 by Angel-125

[undercoveryankee]

So no one knows the number of impacts required for 'complete' science gathering? (assuming optimal sensor placement on the key 6 points.)

No one?

~Steve

Science yield for each impact is half of the previous one (subject to any changes in the sensor grid). If you sum 1+1/2+1/4+…, the limit is 2, so max science is twice the yield of the first impact.

Seven impacts should get you within 1% (1/128) of the limit. 13 will get you to 1/8192 of the limit, which is just short of the 99.99% you asked for. 14 impacts (1/16,384 left) is well within the 99.99%.

Edited June 22, 2014 by undercoveryankee

[Rabada]

Science yield for each impact is half of the previous one (subject to any changes in the sensor grid). If you sum 1+1/2+1/4+…, the limit is 2, so max science is twice the yield of the first impact.

Seven impacts should get you within 1% (1/128) of the limit. 13 will get you to 1/8192 of the limit, which is just short of the 99.99% you asked for. 14 impacts (1/16,384 left) is well within the 99.99%.

Thanks for the info, I edited that into the wiki

[rosenkranz]

That's HUGE- how did you get it away from the Runway/Launchpad without it breaking apart on the slightest bump?

I used the LARGE rover wheels for my rover, with "only" 5 reactors and 3 generators (your design is highly inefficient for Solid Bed Reactors, by the way- two reactors can "share" a single generator), and I had trouble with even TINY bumps in the terrain causing it to explode!

I think I mentioned the cost as well, yak know? But I wouldn't consider a Construction Time plugin fun or realistic by any means- a "real" space program would have its mission planned out years in advance- but that's simply too much to ask of a single KSP player...

The cost should (in theory) be worth it however- unlike sticking those reactors on a rocket, you get to reuse them ad-infinitum if you keep them on the ground (with only a possible small cost for new reactor fuel- which you could easily produce from centrifuging the oceans of Kerbin for Uranium and water, and producing the Ammonia needed to make Uaranium Nitride from the atmosphere- or, just using TAC Fuel Balancer). And, if the devs include a recovery mechanic to the Budgets system, then the ability to build high-performance reusable rockets will be well worth it.

Regards,

Northstar

LOL, that's not huge. Huge was trying to make those with regular rover wheels and trying to build a rover the size of four of those. That didn't work.

What did work, was using aircraft landing gear. For some reason, those suckers won't break. No locomotion but they are steerable and they won't break under the weight. So I broke it down to the size you see in a 3x3 configuration (9 reactor/generators). What you don't see is the engine pod that was attached. The engine pod, which was attached to the back end consisted of a cluster of seven 1.25m reactors with thermal turbojets and as many radial intakes as i could fit.

Once I had the rover in position, i just staged the engine pod to disengage it and let it roll away. The rovers are parked on an incline and the engine pod had it's own wheels. Piece of cake

[DeepOdyssey]

Hello, i need some advice about microwave power transmitting.

I have a rover with two 3,75m upgraded akula reactors on kerbin, with 2 generators, and 8 huge radiators, with 4 huge flat ones. I have identical setup in space near kerbin. My Mun landers sometimes get a lot of power, and sometimes don't, even if stations are in range. I also have a few small probes powered with this beamed power relay. So my questions are.

1. Does an unactive ship with a receiver turned on, drain power from transmitters? Does it matters if i fly the ship or not?

2. Kerbin station orbits kerbin, at about 200km, so there's plenty of time, when those two power sources, are not seeing each other in direct line of sight. Can i transmit power from one source to another and then to the final ship? Can i place a power source on kerbin, and a small geostationary probe with transmitter to relay power further?

[Rabada]

Hello, i need some advice about microwave power transmitting.

I have a rover with two 3,75m upgraded akula reactors on kerbin, with 2 generators, and 8 huge radiators, with 4 huge flat ones. I have identical setup in space near kerbin. My Mun landers sometimes get a lot of power, and sometimes don't, even if stations are in range. I also have a few small probes powered with this beamed power relay. So my questions are.

1. Does an unactive ship with a receiver turned on, drain power from transmitters? Does it matters if i fly the ship or not?

2. Kerbin station orbits kerbin, at about 200km, so there's plenty of time, when those two power sources, are not seeing each other in direct line of sight. Can i transmit power from one source to another and then to the final ship? Can i place a power source on kerbin, and a small geostationary probe with transmitter to relay power further?

I'm not sure about number 1, as for number 2, yes, you use a phased array transceiver and click the button that says relay. In my current game I have 4 probes spread out equidistantly at a 1000km orbit so that I can always get power around Kerbin.

[DeepOdyssey]

So i only need one transceiver? I don't need a transceiver set on "receive" and another one on "relay" ?

[VaporTrail]

IIRC, the minimum number of relays and orbit is three at 600km. It's a pretty precision orbit (Hyperedit works wonders for making perfect orbits...), but it's doable. Four in a higher orbit is a lot more forgiving in terms of lacking perfect orbital stability.

I generally have six relays in my basic power distribution system, three in an equilateral, equatorial, 600km orbit. Three more in an equilateral, equatorial, semisynchronous (1585.18km) orbit. That'll allow distribution anywhere in the Kerbin-Mun-Minmus system short of the back side of the moons. Another set of three around each of the sats in a high polar orbit (500km or more) will bounce power around the moons to the surface or beyond to the rest of the Kerbol system. A further set of relays around each planet will be necessary to distribute power to their surfaces and backsides... but it's fairly easy.

[Rabada]

So i only need one transceiver? I don't need a transceiver set on "receive" and another one on "relay" ?

No, you only want to use the "relay" option for purely relay satelites. The only time I used 2 relays on one satellite was when I launched 4 separate fusion reactors to act as both powerstations and relays. I had one relay set to transmit and the other set to relay. That ended up being overly complicated and I don't recommend setting up your power stations that way.

[Northstar1989]

@Everyone

I'm pretty sure FractalUK added me to his "Ignore" list a long time ago when I was bugging him on this thread a bit, so if you like the idea below, SOMEONE PLEASE RE-POST IT so he can see it. Simply copy-and-paste everything that follows:

@FractalUK

In my continuing quest to research up new and improved technologies that would be appropriate to KSP Interstellar, I came across the following propulsion system that would make a suitable upgrade to Thermal Receivers. The technology could/should act as an alternative (upgraded) configuration for the Thermal Receiver, in the same way as Direct Conversion Generators are alternative configurations for generators:

CW Plasma Receiver (Based on the CW Plasma Thruster described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_propulsion#CW_plasma_propulsion)

Basically, this in an alternative way to turn beamed power into ThermalPower for Thermal Rockets and Thermal Turbojets (the described technology is for a thermal rocket using internal propellant- but with a little engineering you could definitely use air as the working mass instead).

Rather than simply heating up a Heat Exchanger to heat the propellant, the propellant is exposed to a very intense laser beam to heat it up into a plasma as it passes through the device. This allows MUCH higher temperatures to be reached than with a Heat Exchanger (the technology in current Thermal Receivers), and thus much higher ISP ratings can be achieved (approximately 50% higher- an ISP of 1000s for hydrogen).

This could act as a higher-ISP variant of the normal Thermal Receiver, possibly requiring electricity (or perhaps the rectennas to turn Microwave Beamed Power into electricity could be built right into the upgraded Thermal Receiver), but producing relatively less thrust for the power (per E = 1/2 * m * v^2) as well as engendering a certain level of inefficiency and WasteHeat production- much like a Plasma Thruster.

It has some similarities to a plasma thruster, in that electricity is required to run the laser- but its internal workings, conceptual basis, and TWR/ISP are *MUCH* more similar to a Thermal Rocket. And, like any other thermal rocket, it can be used on virtually any propellant- including atmosphere in a Thermal Turbojet- not just those propellants which are easily ionized, like in a Plasma Thruster.

I would suggest for simplicity' sake it just be an alternative form of the Thermal Receiver, that should become available at the same time as Gas/Plasma Core Fission Reactors (the technologies and conceptual basis are HIGHLY similar), and simply produces ThermalPower from Microwave Beamed Power at a much higher "Core Temperature" (for Thermal Rocketry ISP calculations- normalized to an ISP 50% greater than with traditional Thermal Receivers) than a normal Thermal Receiver, but much less efficiently than a standard Thermal Receiver (the laser could be assumed to produce WasteHeat, at a constant % of total power usage), and with possible issues of needing to dissipate WasteHeat production (though, then again, maybe not to a great extent- the heat from the laser could possibly be shunted to pre-heat the gas before it passes through the laser focus...)

The main reason for this suggestion is that it would fill a gap- Beamed Power Thermal Rocketry becomes increasingly inefficient as you develop better and better reactors that leave its (relatively low) ISP values in the dust, despite just being another type of thermal rocketry that is theoretically capable of just as high ISP values with appropriate technologies (like this one), and an increasing availability of greater and greater levels of Beamed Power as players develop infrastructure based on the improved reactors.

I suspect it would also be relatively easy to adapt existing code modules from the Thermal Receiver and Plasma Thruster to provide all the needed functions for this new (upgraded) variant of the Thermal Receiver.

Regards,

Northstar

[Angelo Kerman]

I spent the day today finishing up a 3D model and learning how to add it as a part into KSP. For my first part, I made a Mk2 fuselage compatible electric generator to complement the parts being made by Porkjet for his awesome Spaceplane Plus pack. Right now I don't know how to add a normal map, and I can't figure out how to make the lights glow like those on zzz's models, but it's a matter of time. Help appreciated on figuring out the normal maps (I have a bump map already) and the glowing lights. Functionally, the part is working.

Here are a couple of screenshots showing the spaceplane I built with the new part and Porkjet's parts pack:

[DaveStrider]

you think someone blocked you because you were bugging them, so you proceed to ask other people to bug them on your behalf? dude...

Anyway Fractal hasn't been particularly active here lately, it's entirely possible that he just hasn't got around to replying to you.

[Rabada]

you think someone blocked you because you were bugging them, so you proceed to ask other people to bug them on your behalf? dude...

Anyway Fractal hasn't been particularly active here lately, it's entirely possible that he just hasn't got around to replying to you.

You can block people on this forum? I didn't know that. I can't really say that I blame Fractal for not replaying much on this thread. It would take a lot of time to handle all the posts on this thread. Also a lot of the questions asked on this thread are answered by other players.

And as to Northstar, if I were Fractal I wouldn't reply to you either. It wouldn't really be personal (Although I do tend to respond better to those who are polite and curtious) I wouldn't reply but because no matter what answers he gives, he can't win. Let's say he likes your idea. Then he's gonna have a bunch of people pressuring him to release the content. He doesn't seem to be too open about his future plans for the mod. Let's say he dislikes your idea, then I personally wouldn't say anything at all because people post ideas and request things from Fractal in this thread all the time. Answering and responding to everyone in this thread would be almost like a part time job. I would spend my time doing something constructive.

[Rabada]

By the way! I created a thread in the Spacecraft Exchange for people to show off their Interstellar craft! Please check it out and post pictures of your crafts!

[DeepOdyssey]

Hi, does the isru refinery have to be directly attached to the alumina hybrid rocket to work? I placed it between the mplg lab and rocket, and it doesn't produce the aluminium and oxidizer. It is working, mining aluminum and reprocessing it, but the rocket isn't fuelling itself.

[Northstar1989]

you think someone blocked you because you were bugging them, so you proceed to ask other people to bug them on your behalf? dude...

Anyway Fractal hasn't been particularly active here lately, it's entirely possible that he just hasn't got around to replying to you.

I'm not bugging him- it's a legitimate and well thought-out idea, with a link to back it up.

FractalUK has shown in the past that he is open to listening to good, serious ideas. He even listened to and gave his thoughts on my own ideas back before I got a little too insistent with him on one particular idea (can't remember which, and have had a hard time locating the conversation it was so long ago).

So, rather than attack me, why don't you actually look at my idea, seriously think about it, and consider re-posting it so it can be considered by FractalUK if you like it.

Regards,

Northstar

[Northstar1989]

You can block people on this forum? I didn't know that. I can't really say that I blame Fractal for not replaying much on this thread. It would take a lot of time to handle all the posts on this thread. Also a lot of the questions asked on this thread are answered by other players.

It's a slim hope that he'll see the post even if it's re-posted so he can see it, as he's not as active as he used to be. But it's worth suggesting legitimate ideas for the mod to FractalUK as long as they're made respectfully.

And as to Northstar, if I were Fractal I wouldn't reply to you either. It wouldn't really be personal (Although I do tend to respond better to those who are polite and curtious)

My requests, ideas, comments, have been the very epitome of polite and curious. Although it's hard to get tone across in an electronic communication, why do you think I end every post with "Regards" in the signature? To show my respect for the reader.

As for when FractalUK decided to ignore me, that was one particular moment when I got carried away with an idea/discussion because of my passion for it. Ignoring somebody is always a shame though- because you can't see anything more they do, including if they stop doing whatever was annoying you and go back to being calm, polite, agreeable, etc.

I wouldn't reply but because no matter what answers he gives, he can't win. Let's say he likes your idea. Then he's gonna have a bunch of people pressuring him to release the content. He doesn't seem to be too open about his future plans for the mod. Let's say he dislikes your idea, then I personally wouldn't say anything at all because people post ideas and request things from Fractal in this thread all the time. Answering and responding to everyone in this thread would be almost like a part time job. I would spend my time doing something constructive.

A *good* idea gives potential directions for the growth and expansion of the mod. One person can't think of and research everything- which is why I choose to point out a technology he (and most people) have probably missed that would be a good fit for the mod. If he dislikes it, it's very easy for him to ignore it- he can't even see my posts, so all he has to do is ignore the idea.

But if he *likes* the idea, maybe it'll even make its way into a future Release, and maybe he'll even consider un-blocking me so he can ask me more questions or to obtain more research on the idea for him (which I would be happy to do).

Regards,

Northstar